Gary Burton

[mr jazz]

Passengers was a college fav back in the day. I saw the Times Square tour also in college and really enjoyed Burton's sense of melody and have remained a fan. I also enjoy Like Minds, For Hamp, Red, Bags, and Cal, and Reunion (also saw this tour at Blues Alley in DC). A fine artist.

[.:.impossible]

Historically Burton is important as one of the prime progenitors of fusion...

In short, I think Burton's real achievement is in fusion.

Simon Weil

Burton is also extremely important as a vibist, developing a four mallet grip different from other four mallet players' techniques, allowing for more power in the secondary mallets. The Burton grip now seems to be the most popular four mallet technique for vibraphone.

Personally, I am unable to get the hang of it. The sticks cross in your palm so their position is pretty much locked in your hand.

I was taught a variation of the Musser-Stevens grip which was originally intended for marimba. This technique allows for the player to control intervals by rolling the primary mallet between index and thumb.

For the first year or so, I did notice a lack of strength in the outer mallets, but that is no longer a problem.

[rostasi]

I've found the there's more of a reliance on the

areas around the lower knuckles for quick changes

and power with the Burton grip.

I never learned the Musser grip, because he was my first

and only vibe teacher and we started out right away

with four-mallet technique - his way!

(roll-roll-roll...hop - roll-roll-roll...hop)

[.:.impossible]

Rod, for some reason I thought you were a reeds player, or are you multi? What sorts of things did he have you working on in the beginning? How long were you with him? Was this at Berkeley or were you a private student?

[rostasi]

In the early 70's, I played horn and percussion.

I came home from school one day and my dad had sold my alto.

Said I wasn't practicing enough - tho it was more like that he hated

the music I was into.

Anyway, I had 4 percussion teachers.

The Burton lessons were private over a period of about 4 years,

but not very many of them and at erratic intervals -

which was common for me because I had a rather "unstable" way of life in those days

that kept me from staying very long with any one of the 4 teachers.

There was some overlap of course,

but they all had very busy traveling/performing schedules and

so it was always tricky trying to make things work.

I mentioned that it was his way, but he was rather kind and gentle

about it all and I think he may have been happy or surprised that I

wanted the full four-mallet treatment. Textbook lessons really -

I think one I liked was something like "Modern School for Vibes"

or something like that - it's been 35 years or so, so maybe if I saw the cover.

Etudes and stuff like that.

It's funny, after some of the Burton lessons,

I'd just walk to a house next door

(now a restaurant, but not much changed)

and sit and play tabla with a bunch of people.

The sessions were always lead by a fellow named "Kumar"

who became popular for plate-spinning on the Ed Sullivan show

(and probably other shows as well).

[Peter Friedman]

I have mixed feelings about Gary Burton's recordings. As a vibes player I much prefer the more swinging, bluesy, style of playing by people such as Milt Jackson, Lionel Hampton, Lem Winchester, Dave Pike, Steve Nelson, and a number of others.

Nonetheless, I do enjoy SOME of Burton's recordings. Here are my favorite CDs by Gary Burton as leader.

& Makoto Ozone -Face To Face - GRP

& Keith Jarrett / Throb - Rhino Atlantic (2 LPs on one cd)

& Stephane Grappelli - Paris Encounter - Atlantic

Duster -Koch Jazz

Country Roads & other Places - Koch Jazz

Departure - Concord Jazz

[Chuck Nessa]

BTW, I first encountered him here:

[7/4]

BTW, I first encountered him here:

Man, that's a great album. I just got the CD last Winter.

[Jazz Kat]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

[Ted O'Reilly]

I thought the Burton Quartet of the very late '60s (with Jerry Hahn on guitar replacing Larry Coryell) was a very interesting band. Hahn had a very country/blues sound that brought a bit of funk to Burton, who could be a bit overwhelming, technically. Bill Goodwin brought a nice, loose feel to the time, too, and Steve Swallow was still playing acoustic bass... Nice sound.

I have a 1971 live-in-Tokyo album that was only issued in Japan (and Canada!) that has some good stuff, too -- Sam Brown's on guitar, with Tony Levin on bass. I've not listened to it in years: maybe I'll make a CDR of it...

[Simon Weil]

Historically Burton is important as one of the prime progenitors of fusion...

In short, I think Burton's real achievement is in fusion.

Simon Weil

Burton is also extremely important as a vibist, developing a four mallet grip different from other four mallet players' techniques, allowing for more power in the secondary mallets. The Burton grip now seems to be the most popular four mallet technique for vibraphone.

It's just, as a non-player, these technical aspects seem less important. I mean, evidently, you can't produce the music without a specific from of technique and the skills to back it up. But, when you listen to the music, how does that impact? I did know, somewhere, that he's a key innovator on vibes but I guess I accidentally on purpose forgot it. But I suppose what I'd really like to do is get musicians to move out of their comfort zone and, when they assert a technical innovator's historical significance, indicate how that plays out in the experienced sound.

I guess I'm really thinking about the visual arts, where you get critics who are both technically acute and wise to the content of a form - and are able to connect up the two. So that the inexperienced reader is able to see "Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content". I mean fusion evidently (or I think) involves a change in content, but I'm not sure about the change in technique from 2 mallets to 4. So I, as anon-musician, struggle to see (in my own terms) why I should be so excited by the innovation in technique.

I know I'm working against the standard view of Jazz history here - which is written, primarily, in terms of technical and formal innovation. But I think that tends to lead to a ghettoisation of Jazz, with only the technical and formally competent able to discuss the form. If some effort was made to translate the formal and technical innovation into its effect on content, I think that would make for a more average-person friendly discourse. If only because the content, the vibe, the mood of a piece is what he most of all experiences.

It's this whole thing of "if you're not a musician, you won't understand..." which pisses me off.

[Rant over]

Simon Weil

Edited June 23, 2007 by Simon Weil

[rostasi]

I hear these kind of comments often with all sorts of music and art,

and without going into paragraphs on the positive aspects of being

informed about what is going thru your senses and the sheer delight

in knowledge attainment, let me just say, simply:

It helps to know these things when you hear or look at something

and you have to say,

"HEY! What the f**k was that??!!

"How does Pharaoh get that sound?"

"I get a different feeling listening to Miles than I do listening to Wynton - why is that?"

"Why is it that I hear two or three vibist and there is only one playing?"

etc...

Here's Burton at his finest - just by himself -

and tell me that you don't have at least some curiosity

about what he's doing and how he's doing it.

This is why "impossible's" comment about Burton's mastery of 4 mallet technique stands:

Chega de Saudade

[.:.impossible]

Historically Burton is important as one of the prime progenitors of fusion...

In short, I think Burton's real achievement is in fusion.

Simon Weil

Burton is also extremely important as a vibist, developing a four mallet grip different from other four mallet players' techniques, allowing for more power in the secondary mallets. The Burton grip now seems to be the most popular four mallet technique for vibraphone.

It's just, as a non-player, these technical aspects seem less important. I mean, evidently, you can't produce the music without a specific from of technique and the skills to back it up. But, when you listen to the music, how does that impact? I did know, somewhere, that he's a key innovator on vibes but I guess I accidentally on purpose forgot it. But I suppose what I'd really like to do is get musicians to move out of their comfort zone and, when they assert a technical innovator's historical significance, indicate how that plays out in the experienced sound.

I guess I'm really thinking about the visual arts, where you get critics who are both technically acute and wise to the content of a form - and are able to connect up the two. So that the inexperienced reader is able to see "Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content". I mean fusion evidently (or I think) involves a change in content, but I'm not sure about the change in technique from 2 mallets to 4. So I, as anon-musician, struggle to see (in my own terms) why I should be so excited by the innovation in technique.

I know I'm working against the standard view of Jazz history here - which is written, primarily, in terms of technical and formal innovation. But I think that tends to lead to a ghettoisation of Jazz, with only the technical and formally competent able to discuss the form. If some effort was made to translate the formal and technical innovation into its effect on content, I think that would make for a more average-person friendly discourse. If only because the content, the vibe, the mood of a piece is what he most of all experiences.

It's this whole thing of "if you're not a musician, you won't understand..." which pisses me off.

[Rant over]

Simon Weil

Oh, well I was just adding to the conversation. No eliticism here... I know how he holds his mallets and I still don't understand how he does many of the things he does.

[Joe G]

"Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content".

I think that, ideally, it's the content that presents itself to the artist first, who then must strive to master the techniques required to adequately express that content.

Technique without content is an empty gesture; content without technique is a vision unrealized.

[7/4]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

[rostasi]

... two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets...

Then, that's what you should use if that gives you the sound that you want. It's no weakness.

As time goes on, you may want to expand... first, a little...and then maybe later

you'll want to go even further...or you may find your "sound" early on and just stick with it.

It's all experimenting - and you shouldn't stop (unless you lose interest, of course).

[Jazz Kat]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

Since I was about three years old, so fuck off!!! I have been playing mallet instruments for the majority of what you would call a short life. It has been very much a part of my life up till this point. It was just until recently I decided to put myself out there and focus on the vibes full time, after about 10 or so years of playing drums.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Jazz Kat

[7/4]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

Since I was about three years old, so fuck off!!! I have been playing mallet instruments for the majority of what you would call a short life. It has been very much a part of my life up till this point. It was just until recently I decided to put myself out there and focus on the vibes full time, after about 10 or so years of playing drums.

Fuck off?

[marcello]

Manners, young man.

Nobody will thing you are cheating with two mallets.

Stephon Harris uses two.

When Joe Locke ( who is a two mallet master ) plays ( always four mallets) he mainly plays lines with the two inside mallets. Because of his huge harmonic facility, four are used often for chords.

That works for him, for others, it's different.

Check out these videos of Joe for a look:

Joe Locke / Christo Rafaledis Vibes/Marimba Duo - Van Gogh By Numbers

[Simon Weil]

"Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content".

I think that, ideally, it's the content that presents itself to the artist first, who then must strive to master the techniques required to adequately express that content.

That's what I think, but in the discourse about Jazz, it seems like the content gets lost oftentimes. I mean it's there, but people seem not to talk about it. It's like they're embarassed to talk about it.

Technique without content is an empty gesture; content without technique is a vision unrealized.

C'est vrai.

....

I want to apologize to impossible. It wasn't like his post deserved that response (well, maybe a little) but I wanted to get that thing off my chest and...The thing about me and technique is I never see the point in learning about technique unless:

1) I've got something to say (content above)

2) This is the form for me

3) People are going to listen

That presents me as a performer (in the widest sense) - and I do see myself like that, as a person with things to say. See, when Rostasi says, if you learn about technique then you'll be able to understand all that deep stuff, it doesn't really interest me. This is the kind of passive listener approach - and I'm not that.

I'm a writer who's rather frustrated. This is because I feel people are equivocal about me - this is number 3 in the list. This is why I don't learn about technique (except in the very limited ways that matter to me) because it's a considerable effort of time, money and life energies and I don't feel I'm going to get a pay-back. One has to pick and choose what one commits to (especially at my age).

I think people need to think about the point about ghettoisation, though.

Simon Weil

Edited June 23, 2007 by Simon Weil

[Bright Moments]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

Since I was about three years old, so fuck off!!!

[7/4]

punk vibes?

[rostasi]

The Viberators

[Bright Moments]

punk vibes?

terry gibbs was a tough kid (per his autobiography).

[JSngry]

I want to apologize to impossible. It wasn't like his post deserved that response (well, maybe a little) but I wanted to get that thing off my chest and...The thing about me and technique is I never see the point in learning about technique unless:

1) I've got something to say (content above)

2) This is the form for me

3) People are going to listen

That presents me as a performer (in the widest sense) - and I do see myself like that, as a person with things to say. See, when Rostasi says, if you learn about technique then you'll be able to understand all that deep stuff, it doesn't really interest me. This is the kind of passive listener approach - and I'm not that.

I'm a writer who's rather frustrated. This is because I feel people are equivocal about me - this is number 3 in the list. This is why I don't learn about technique (except in the very limited ways that matter to me) because it's a considerable effort of time, money and life energies and I don't feel I'm going to get a pay-back. One has to pick and choose what one commits to (especially at my age).

I think people need to think about the point about ghettoisation, though.

Simon Weil

Technique matters and there's no reason at all not to discuss it openly and in detail. No, not everybody needs and/or wants to hear about it, and that's cool too. And by no means is technique the object of the game (although it is how that object is achieved). And yeah, jazz especially has too much too often gotten way too "technical" in both concept & vibe to do anybody any good, but that's a spiritual failing, nothing more. I guarantee you that technique was every bit as important Before The Fall as it is now, it was just "objectified" differntly than it is now. But hell, instruments don't paly themselves, and players don't "make magic" just by picking up an instrument and blowing. No matter how much one does or doesn't "care" about that (and for a non-musician, that there is no right or wrong on that one), anybody who doesn't acknowledge it as a fundamental reality of life worthy of respect as same before deciding how much to care or not to care about it is a goddamned fool. Period.

To shy away from any/all technical talk as a matter of principal is really just a matter of willful ignorance that places music entirely in the realm of the "mystical" or some such, and as much as that is an appealing notion, its at best only a partially accurate one. Craft absolutely must be discussed openly, if not eternally and/or omnipresently. To anybody who's present when it is being discussed amongst fellow practitioneers, the only three options of grace are to 1) avoid the discussion altogether; 2) remain silent but be elsewhere mentally; 3) listen and try to learn something, if only an appreciation of how much non-"mystery" there in the creation of something that you love.

Under no circumstances is it an act of graciousness to interrupt a conversation of "shop talk" between two or more practitioneers of the craft and whine to them that you don't care about what they're talking about and that you don't think it's important. It's not too much different from telling the woman you claim to love that you don't give a damn about her job, her family, or anything else about her, all you really care about is for her to keep sucking your dick and swallowing your cum. I exaggerate, but not all that much, not really...

This is a genuine music forum, not just a "fan" forum. Rejection of the notion that musicians should feel free to talk about music in all its aspects in such a forum, although good advice for life outside the Cave (if there still is such), is an affront to anybody and everybody who plays even semi-seriously. And the notion that such talk should not be engaged in because it just doesn't matter is worse than an affront - it's 100% cockeyed bullshit.

Hell, I'm all for bringing the music to people, not at them, and I don't even particularly like Gary Burton, not even barely just a little. But this rubbed me the wrong way big time, just because. Nothing personal Simon, really, but you're just wrong here, period. That was musician-to-musician talk, and if from time to time we can't have that in a forum like this, hey, fuck it all. You're welcome to feel it as frivilous as you want. But to insinuate that it should not be put out in the open because of your...whatever, hey man, that's more than just a bit much. I'll not not take you seriously because you don't want to know about shit like that and it doesn't matter to you (hell, some of my best friends don't want to know about shit like that and it doesn't matter to them) but I'll sure as hell will not take you seriously if you go floating the notion that it's all a big bunch of sillypoofytalk that doesn't ever matter in any way at any time. Damn right I won't, nor will anybody who has even half a clue about how music really "works". Maybe, just maybe, that's the reason for some of that equivocation you feel. I don't know. But I'd certainly not rule it out.

Just my opinion, but that's it.

Edited June 23, 2007 by JSngry